TEA PARTY QUESTIONNAIRE AND MY RESPONSES:
1. According to the most recent financial report the City is projected to have a $2+ million increase in pension expenses by 2016, how do you propose to meet that obligation without reducing city services?
Based on the most current projections, and assuming a continuing decrease in property values, the projected shortfall for the entire city budget in FY2015 (2016) will only be about $800,000. (See the Feb 28 Council Packet, Page 14.) That is due, in part, to the actions we took on Feb 28 to reduce some of the pension benefits. Between now and FY2013, TMRS (pension) costs will increase about $150,000, with most of that occurring in FY 2012. For FY2014 and beyond, TMRS costs should remain pretty level. If proposed changes to the TRMS system are made, either by the current legislature or the next, our TMRS expenses could actually decline. Of course, projections are just that, and in this budget environment, every year is a new experience.
Taking your question in the abstract, the approach is the same no matter the increase in cost and no matter what for. We must balance and prioritize the expenses against the available revenue. City personnel are part and parcel of city services, so those costs are considered alongside all other costs. Regardless of how we balance revenue and costs, the Charter requires a balanced budget.
In anticipation that things might continue to get worse, and the possibility that we might reach a point where we must consider cutting services, we instituted the My Community, My Money, My Choice survey in order to determine where citizens placed the most value and to get their input on priorities. If we get to that point, the results of that survey will be very persuasive in determining what we need to do. After all, the very basis of the survey, and of city government, is that the city belongs to its citizens and it is their money. This has been one of the most effective and persistent efforts by the City (any City for that matter) to reach out to its citizens. The choice will be theirs.
2. The City Manager recently laid off 5 people, was that the right move? Why or why not?
To begin with, that decision is solely within the discretion of the City Manager and is not subject to review by City Council. That said, I have no reason to believe it wasn’t the right move. I would also note that she eliminated five positions, one of which was already vacant. One of the four employees retired, resulting in three layoffs. I would also note that contrary to some irresponsible rumors, the reductions were carefully reviewed by the City Attorney beforehand to insure that they complied with the law and that there was no disparate effect.
The City Manager is expected, on an ongoing basis, to review city staffing to insure that it is appropriate for the services we provide, with the caveat that city services must not be adversely affected. I hate the term “right size,” but that’s what it is. Obviously, there is increasing emphasis on this in response to the current economic climate. Last July, the City Manager announced that through consolidation and reorganization, she felt that some positions could be eliminated. Over the next nine months, she kept us updated on that process, with a goal to reach a decision by March in order to give affected employees the maximum amount of time to find other work. The process was deliberative, methodical and not rushed. With the caveat that I am no fan of layoffs, I have no reason whatsoever to doubt that it was an appropriate action, taken in the best interests of the citizens and the city.
4. Are you open to review the city charter to allow for council representation by district rather than at-large seats?
I am open to a review of this. It never hurts to review it, to discuss it, and it comes up every two or three years anyway.
At one time, I was personally in favor of it. However, I’ve since come to the conclusion that the cost far exceeds the few benefits we would receive; and, as a practical matter, it might actually be detrimental to the welfare of the city.
When it comes to all matters relating to voting, we have restrictions on what we can do and not do. It is an area governed by a virtual minefield of federal law. My idea of “districts” in Rowlett was fairly simplistic - after all, the city easily divides into quadrants. (I’m assuming your question speaks to geographic districts.) However, some folks have looked into this issue before, and it’s far from that simple. Not only do the districts have to be drawn to insure that everyone’s vote is equal, they have to be adjusted regularly. I don’t think they would be nearly as controversial in a non-partisan system as what we see going on statewide now, but managing them would still be a pain, and costly.
Another factor is that once you go down that road, admitting that you are willing and able to bear the burden of managing districts, you have no defense to districting on some basis other than geography.
There are practical issues as well. In many years, folks are not exactly knocking down the doors here to run for office. Given the size of the city and the limited number of people both qualified and interested enough to run for office, having the city broken into districts might have a chilling effect on qualified candidates.
Finally, Rowlett is not so large and diversified that issues in different parts of town can’t be addressed adequately by council members elected at large. I think districting might also tend to divide the Council on some issues as well. Then there is the situation where one district has a particularly effective representative, and another a particularly ineffective representative. Right now, every neighborhood has the chance to reach out to the council member of their choice knowing that every council member has to get votes from over the entire city. Although not entirely analogous, one look at Dallas’ system should be enough to discourage districts, which in turn creates agendas and competition within the council.
All of that is merely argument, of course. But, I’m willing to look at it and be persuaded otherwise.
5. The money to fund capital improvements has been significantly drained over the past year. How do you anticipate paying for ongoing capital improvement projects without a dedicated fund to address road, alley, and utility repairs?
You are actually talking about two different things here I think. Road, alley and utility repairs are something apart from the Capital Improvements Plan, although we use the term “Cash CIP” for some road and alley rehabilitation, which confuses the issue. I’ll address each.
Capital improvement expenditures (new, ground up projects, and complete rebuild) have actually slowed down a bit. One of the issues with the prior administration is that they borrowed a whole lot of money for projects that would not be built for years. For the most part, this is not an efficient or cost effective way to manage those funds, as current rock-bottom interest rates have demonstrated.
Regardless, several years ago the Council began dialing back on how those funds are spent. Probably the most dramatic example was the decision to rehabilitate Rowlett Road Phase III, rather than rebuild it, saving millions. We’ve stretched out and restricted the use of CIP funds, which has allowed us to respond to immediate needs as they arise.
Eventually, however, those funds will run out. As it does, we will be able to obtain a limited amount of new money, without new taxes, as debt expires on some of the old bonds. However, we’re quite a ways from being able to have the funds we’re used to having. It is also likely that in the coming few years, there will be far fewer federal and state dollars available, which will have an effect too. At the most basic level, we will have to manage new capital programs to live within a much smaller budget until that debt capacity is restored.
In the interim, if there is something for which the need is obvious, or the desire of the citizens is high, we can allow them to make that decision via a bond election.
Street and ally rehabilitation and maintenance will continue via the “Cash CIP” program, which is funded each year and is not dependent on bond money. We’ve been putting about $4 mil. annually into Cash CIP. There is some sentiment to having a dedicated fund for Cash CIP, which I have supported, but the consensus is that at the end of the day, there is no practical benefit. The goal of the Cash CIP and the benefits are well known. It will continue to be funded at a level we can afford, and at which we can execute. If it got to the point that we couldn’t afford it at a particular level, it would make no difference whether it was its own dedicated fund or not because at the next budget cycle, it would simply be funded at the reduced level. A mandatory level of funding has also been discussed, but bogged down in the details and the inability to fashion a provision that would be flexible enough to allow for any number of contingencies.
Utilities are funded from the Utility Fund, which is a dedicated fund. It is also distinguished by the fact that it is self-sufficient, funded from utility fees.
6. If a topic arises on which the mayor and city council members are divided, how would you handle it so it doesn’t become a public issue?
There’s actually not much you can do in that regard. The preferred, and usual, way of handling issues is that the issue is discussed, debated or argued, at varying levels of intensity and for varying lengths of time depending on the issue – then voted on. Once the vote is taken, the issue is over and we move on. An issue remains a public issue only if the one or more council members (the Mayor is just another council member in that regard) choose to continue to make it an issue, almost always one on the losing side. Although this is usually not productive, the fact remains that council members have First Amendment rights too and can speak freely about whatever they want to speak about.
It seems apparent that in the interest of good order and effective government that once the debate is “officially” over, the loser, as a member of a team, would move on. However, as we’ve seen, some folks just don’t know when to quit. But be that as it may, there simply isn’t much the remainder of Council can do about it unless and until the dissident crosses some line or another that allows the Council to take official action.
THE TEA PARTY RESPONSE:
Mr. Kilgore provided us with some thoughtful and comprehensive answers to our questions, and corrected a couple facts for us. Mr. McEntee also responded to our questions in a thoughtful manner. We thank both of them for their responses. From a fiscal perspective we believe both candidates are well intentioned and will strive to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. However, we believe that Mr. Kilgore has a governing philosophy diametrically opposed to the principle of Limited Government. Mr. Kilgore believes that Rowlett’s future relies on a carefully managed development process, managed by elected officials and City Staff presumably. The Rowlett Tea Party has as one of its guiding principles, Limited Government. A City Council involved in the business of private property owners violates this principle so dramatically, that the Rowlett Tea Party must oppose Mr. Kilgore and recommend Chad McEntee for Place #5.
AND, MY REBUTTAL:
They are certainly right about one thing, I do intend that we exert some governmental control over the development of Rowlett. Unless you believe that the world really is going to end on May 21st, this is really important. If we just let the market take care of it, Rowlett will all eventually be developed, just like most other ring cities; and in 30 – 40, maybe 50 years we’ll be just another run-down, tired town of empty boxes, apartments and rental homes looking to reinvent ourselves. This isn’t rocket science. We live in a giant laboratory, surrounded by older ring cities that have undergone the same boom – bust cycle. If we want to avoid that same fate, we have to do it right the first time, and by definition that means not letting it take care of itself.
I am a fan of limited government, but one size does not fit all. Just because the federal government needs to be seriously trimmed, it doesn’t necessarily follow that local government must be as drastically trimmed. You have to judge your local government on its own merits. I really believe that the majority of citizens of Rowlett want us to preserve the long term sustainability of Rowlett – if for no other reason than the desire to protect their largest investment, their home. I think this is exactly the sort of thing we’ve been elected to do.
